5 ms·

> ... doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? I don't think so, no. Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away,

> ... doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? I don't think so, no. Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away, from anyone, even from prisoners. Control of wealth is not one of those things, I don't think. There are times when it's fair for your country to take your money from you against your will. There are times when it's fair for your country to audit or freeze your finances against your will, or simply stop you accessing them. Is control of money & access to the economy important? Sure. It's important enough to be in the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are expected to be paid, and have access to a shop. Is it a basic human right? I don't think so.

narag 10y ago
There are times when it's fair for your country to take your money from you against your will And there are times when you can be jailed against your will. There is a huge gray area between absolute private property and absolute state property that's where every country in the world is, including worst tiranies. Also free societies are more on the more private property half of that area.
- richmarr 10y ago
  Sorry I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be suggesting a positive correlation between private property and freedom, but I think that's a far more complicated relationship than an implied correlation allows... as shown by the fact that 'socialist' democracies like New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, etc. consistently rank highest on indices of freedom (e.g. Cato) and laissez-faire democracies like the US tend to trail them.
  - narag 10y ago
    So no pp for nz??? Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. The goverment seizes at least half the production of the country. Maybe USA spends a lot in the military while other countries spends more on public health. But that's how they spend the money. The fact that money is collected and percentage of wealth seized is the same. What (hopefully) we're talking about here is the legal safety that you have for the money that you have after taxes. If the State can arbitrarily seize money, raise the taxes to confiscatory levels or use another trick to crush you, that's lack of control. I don't think that's worse in NZ than in the USA. Actually I believe it to be the other way around.
    - richmarr 10y ago
      > Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. You're analysing my point backwards. Fundamental right aren't more important because the state can't suspect them... they are more important, so the state shouldn't suspend them. Do we now agree, or do you still disagree even with the order corrected? > Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. Okay, slow down and take the time to read what I actually wrote, because you're quoting and arguing against something I didn't say... and being kinda rude with it. I'm fine being easy-going about your manners, but if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote then writing more is kinda pointless.
      - narag 10y ago
        Look, if you stray from initial point and keep moving goal posts, don't expect me to be kind. You first wrote this: Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away, from anyone, even from prisoners. That seems like a clear (and wrong) point. Free speech, freedom to move and so on are human rights and everybody understand that. One prisoner has none of these. So first you make an obliquous attack on private property, you don't say it's not a human right, but you create a distintion between "basic" and "advanced" human rights and proceed to define a rule that separates ones from the others. But that rule doesn't work. We suspend basic human rights to prisoners because, well, they're prisoners and there are good reasons to do it. Now you say that the point is backwards because casuality is the other way around. But it makes no difference. Please explain what it is said difference if you disagree. But then, you would have no point at all, it's just your opinion on what should be. Also you blatantly misrepresent what I said: You seem to be suggesting a positive correlation between private property and freedom That's taking a clear point (that without private property there is no freedom) and introducing a scale of "more private property" vs "less private property", that's also misleading, because all the countries that you mention have well protected private property. So you're consistently trying to dilute others' points, making distracting distinctions and then ignoring the original points. I hadn't complained, but it's not a nice way to discuss, FYI.

narag 10y ago

There are times when it's fair for your country to take your money from you against your will And there are times when you can be jailed against your will. There is a huge gray area between absolute private property and absolute state property that's where every country in the world is, including worst tiranies. Also free societies are more on the more private property half of that area.

richmarr 10y ago
Sorry I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be suggesting a positive correlation between private property and freedom, but I think that's a far more complicated relationship than an implied correlation allows... as shown by the fact that 'socialist' democracies like New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, etc. consistently rank highest on indices of freedom (e.g. Cato) and laissez-faire democracies like the US tend to trail them.
- narag 10y ago
  So no pp for nz??? Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. The goverment seizes at least half the production of the country. Maybe USA spends a lot in the military while other countries spends more on public health. But that's how they spend the money. The fact that money is collected and percentage of wealth seized is the same. What (hopefully) we're talking about here is the legal safety that you have for the money that you have after taxes. If the State can arbitrarily seize money, raise the taxes to confiscatory levels or use another trick to crush you, that's lack of control. I don't think that's worse in NZ than in the USA. Actually I believe it to be the other way around.
  - richmarr 10y ago
    > Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. You're analysing my point backwards. Fundamental right aren't more important because the state can't suspect them... they are more important, so the state shouldn't suspend them. Do we now agree, or do you still disagree even with the order corrected? > Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. Okay, slow down and take the time to read what I actually wrote, because you're quoting and arguing against something I didn't say... and being kinda rude with it. I'm fine being easy-going about your manners, but if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote then writing more is kinda pointless.
    - narag 10y ago
      Look, if you stray from initial point and keep moving goal posts, don't expect me to be kind. You first wrote this: Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away, from anyone, even from prisoners. That seems like a clear (and wrong) point. Free speech, freedom to move and so on are human rights and everybody understand that. One prisoner has none of these. So first you make an obliquous attack on private property, you don't say it's not a human right, but you create a distintion between "basic" and "advanced" human rights and proceed to define a rule that separates ones from the others. But that rule doesn't work. We suspend basic human rights to prisoners because, well, they're prisoners and there are good reasons to do it. Now you say that the point is backwards because casuality is the other way around. But it makes no difference. Please explain what it is said difference if you disagree. But then, you would have no point at all, it's just your opinion on what should be. Also you blatantly misrepresent what I said: You seem to be suggesting a positive correlation between private property and freedom That's taking a clear point (that without private property there is no freedom) and introducing a scale of "more private property" vs "less private property", that's also misleading, because all the countries that you mention have well protected private property. So you're consistently trying to dilute others' points, making distracting distinctions and then ignoring the original points. I hadn't complained, but it's not a nice way to discuss, FYI.